Growing U.S. Isolation
at the United Nations on Disarmament and Security
Michael Spies
December 9, 2006

Since the Democratic sweep of Congress in the November 7 elections,
and the ousters of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and UN Ambassador
John Bolton, the U.S. position in the world has already begun to
look better. The prospects of genuine congressional oversight, coupled
with the shakeup of President Bush’s foreign policy team,
has already helped restore the global reputation of the United States,
tarnished by the unauthorized invasion of Iraq and a slew of human
rights scandals, from Abu Ghraib to Guantanamo Bay.

A turnaround in the steady U.S. slide into global isolation couldn’t
come soon enough. Since 9/11, U.S. foreign policy has been characterized
by the “with us or with the terrorists,” black and white
unilateralism of the Bush administration. In global forums the United
States now stands out as a true obstructionist state. This was more
apparent than ever at the 61st session of the UN General Assembly.
The already bleak U.S. record in such fora grew more dismal, as
the United States fulfilled and even exceeded its increasingly common
role as the “spoiler”. Out of 54 resolutions on disarmament
and security the Assembly adopted on December 6, the United States
voted against 26. In 12 of those resolutions, it cast the lone “no”
vote (see table).

Incredibly, the United States stood alone even against measures
intended to mitigate factors fueling civil wars and armed conflict,
particularly in the developing world. These measures include curbs
on the illicit trade of small arms, as well as initial negotiations
towards a treaty “establishing common international standards
for” regulating the international sale of conventional weapons.
The United States also provided the sole opposition to two resolutions
aimed at preventing the deployment of weapons in outer space.

In its resistance to nuclear disarmament measures, the United States
sometimes finds common cause with its most ardent adversaries. This
was particularly true for the resolution on the Comprehensive Test
Ban Treaty (CTBT). The resolution urges states that have not yet
ratified the treaty to do so, particularly when additional ratifications,
including that of the United States, are still needed to bring the
CTBT into force. The CTBT also calls upon states to continue observing
the moratorium on nuclear test explosions and condemns North Korea’s
October 9 nuclear weapons test. The General Assembly approved the
resolution overwhelmingly, with 172 countries voting in favor. Only
two states voted no: North Korea and the United States.

The CTBT is crucial to preventing the spread of nuclear weapons
and constraining the modernization of existing arsenals. Many arms
control experts view U.S. opposition to the CTBT as supremely unwise
because additional nuclear tests would allow potential U.S. adversaries
to qualitatively improve their arsenals. Now we can add “blatant
hypocrisy” to an assessment of the Bush administration’s
already misguided and increasingly incoherent policy on nuclear
testing. The administration reserves the right of the U.S to conduct
nuclear tests, and recently directed the Department of Energy to
increase its level of readiness to conduct future test explosions.
At the same time, in an October explanation of its intention to
vote against the CTBT resolution, the United State ironically expressed
support for the paragraph condemning North Korea’s nuclear
test, which further demanded that North Korea not conduct additional
tests. The subtext of this statement could not be clearer: do as
we say, not as we do.

Fueled by neoconservative skepticism toward democratic international
institutions, on the global stage the Bush administration has been
increasingly willing to selectively apply international norms in
asserting an illusory national interest. These policies have succeeded
only in promoting the law of the jungle over the rule of law, and
have proved disastrous in practice. They have also undermined the
realistic, collective efforts of the international community to
solve global problems. Given the repeated failures of the “my
way or the highway” approach to security exemplified by the
quagmire in Iraq and the failure to halt North Korea’s nuclear
ambitions, the time is past ripe for the Bush administration to
change its course and finally give cooperation a chance.

Michael Spies is program associate for the New York-based Lawyers’
Committee on Nuclear Policy and co-editor of the forthcoming report,
Nuclear Disorder or Cooperative Security? U.S. Weapons of Terror,
the Global Proliferation Crisis, and Paths to Peace.